Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 789

< Wikipedia:Teahouse‎ | Questions
Archive 785 ← Archive 787 Archive 788 Archive 789 Archive 790 Archive 791 → Archive 795

Article is a copy of another article's section

Baikalia is almost entirely the same as Lake_Baikal#History. Does policy state that it should be put forth for deletion? The Verified Cactus 100% 23:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@VerifiedCactus: No, it does not need to be deleted. The required attribution is in the edit summary (per WP:CWW). The section in the Lake Baikal article perhaps could be trimmed down some now that there is a separate article. RudolfRed (talk) 01:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I can't believe this.

I searched up a Wikipedia page that was about me and found out it was deleted. I thought you guys would be interested in me? Because it says that I was mistaken as The Disney Brain and I'm not really a YouTuber at all. Somebody seems to be not noticing some information about me. Actually there was a draft somebody made for me and it also got deleted. Why would you use a photo of me for that article/draft? Because I wasn't famous enough? Kylericardolaifatt 03:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylericardolaifatt (talk • contribs)

Hello Kylericardolaifatt and welcome to the Teahouse.
It's certainly possible for someone to be famous in some area and still not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. It's not because of lack of fame, it's because of a lack of reliable, published, independent sources that can be used as the basis for an article. While this may mean that WP is a bit behind the times as far as tracking the meteoric rise of new-media personalities, it goes back to ensuring that readers have a way to verify anything that a WP article says about a subject. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Kylericardolaifatt. Kyle Lai-Fatt was deleted by an administrator named Cryptic per WP:A7; actually, it was deleted twice by Cryptic without a few minutes of each other most likely because somebody tried to re-create the article again after it was deleted the first time. I'm not an administrator so I cannot see the content which was deleted, but you can post at User talk:Cryptic and ask for more details if you want. You might also want to read Wikipedia:Why was the page I created deleted?, Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, Wikipedia:Too soon and Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything just for some general information about articles and why they are sometimes deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Related discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The Disney Brain. —Cryptic 04:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Kylericardolaifatt. Here is the complete content of the deleted article: "Kyle Ricardo Lai-Fatt (born in 1974) was the Assistant Project Manager for Visual Concepts. He now works with Swirl." The editor who created that article has been blocked, for good reasons.
If you think that an "assistant project manager" deserves a Wikipedia biography with no other plausible claim of notabilty, then you may misunderstand this website. Do you have any other questions? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Not everyone is interested at you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.148.227.144 (talk) 07:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Be polite.David notMD (talk) 09:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Why? S/he/they is using my voice without my permission right here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1EGEha2frM. Now I can explain, they're using my voice and that is not me! It's somebody named "Max Santana"! Kylericardolaifatt 02:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylericardolaifatt (talk • contribs)
I was advising 49 to be polite. David notMD (talk) 11:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I will be polite if you can put my article back again, please? Can you put it back? Thank you Kylericardolaifatt 19:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylericardolaifatt (talk • contribs)
Hello, Kylericardolaifatt. The article Kyle Lai-Fatt, as it stood before, as not and is not appropriate for Wikipedia. If it were "put back" it would soon be deleted again. Each article needs to be about a notable topic. For articles about people, the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (people) explains the various ways in which notability may be established. There is also the General Notability Guideline (or GNG as it is often called). If a topic is not notable, there simply cannot be an article about it, or not for long. In addition, an article needs to make it clear hoew the topic is notable, and needs to support this, in most cases, by citing independent published reliable sources. Do you honestly think that you pass any one of those guidelines and that your notability can be established? If you do, please explain why (be specific), with a few good sources that help establish this. If i agree, i will help create such an article. If you are not notable by Wikipedia standards, then there simply won't be an article about you. I, for example, am not notable. Most people aren't. We have a bit over 5 million English-language articles, most of them not about living people. There are currently over 300 million people in the United States alone, and several billion people world wide. Fewer than one person in three thousand has an article on en.Wikipedia. I repeat, i am willing to help if you can indicate why and how you are notable, and provide sources to support it. Otherwise, complaining about the matter will help no one. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and Kylericardolaifatt, please do not refer to it as "my article". It was an article about you, apparently (leaving aside that we can't be sure of your identity here). As mentioned in WP:OWN, no one person owns or controls any article, even or especially when that person is the subject of the article. Also, your dispute with someone over use of your voice on Youtube is really not relevant to Wikipedia. We can't help you with that at all, and won't try. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@Cryptic: Thanks, CU confirmed and blocked. Doug Weller talk 07:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Speed deleted wiki page

How much time tag takes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fizza alam (talk • contribs) 11:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Fizza alam. If you are referring to the article Nadia Umber Lodhi, it was deleted several weeks ago. Is there a different page which you feel needs to be deleted? Yunshui 雲水 11:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Renominating an Afd

Recently a Afd (specifically this one) nominated by me closed as No consensus (mainly due to lack of participation). Would it be appropriate for me to open a new Afd for the same page provided I give a stronger rationale? — FR + 10:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

FR30799386, if an AfD closed 12 days ago with only you an one other editor participating, it's highly unlikely this would change in the immediate future, and generally speaking, it's a good idea to wait at least a month before renominating an article. I read the AfD discussion, and frankly, I would have voted "keep". If you do re-nominate, you should consider notifying the discussion to the talk pages of relevant projects, e.g WikiProject Indian television and WikiProject India to maybe get greater participation. Voceditenore (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

picture

how do we add a picture to our article?

also in that area notable mentions too

thank you all — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peelsan (talk • contribs) 02:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Peelsan. I'm not sure what you mean by "notable mentions" but for Wikipedia's definition of notability, please have a look at this page. For adding pictures, this essay may be helpful. Yunshui 雲水 11:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
If by "our article" you mean Kensei Taba, the article has been deleted twice (as have mentions of Kensei Taba inserted into other articles). Please do not attempt to create it again until you understand the reasons given for deletion. A better route might be to work on a draft in your sandbox, then submit it as an article for creation. But first, the lack of references to independent published content about Kensei Taba has to be remedied. David notMD (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Should I Nominate for FA Review?

Hello, I am relatively new to Wikipedia and I would like to improve the quality of the antioxidant article (promoted to FA-status in 2007). I feel that there are numerous issues with the article, which I have started to enumerate on talk:antioxidant. In my opinion, it is of B-class, but I would like input from more experienced Wikipedians. My theory is that it would be easier to edit and get more attention if it went through an FA review. Would it be worth putting up for FA-Review? How would this be done? Would this make improving it any easier? Or should I leave the rating be and improve it where possible? Thanks in advance! --Dag330 (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Dag330: If you feel it no longer meets the FA criteria, then start a discussion on the article's talk page. If the issues are not resolved, then you can nominate it for review. See WP:FAR for the process.
Proposing a FA article be de-listed is a huge step. Your approach - raising issues at Talk before or at same time as editing/improving the article - will work. Be aware that as a person "...relatively new to Wikipedia..." you are choosing an article that has scores of experienced editors keeping it on their watch list. What you think are improvements may well be reverted by others (as happened to your first attempt). I suggest you be modest in your changes, and do not pick fights if reversed. David notMD (talk) 02:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @David notMD: Yes, I suspected it would be a big ordeal. I will leave it to a more experienced editor to bring up FA-review in the future. See you on the talk page! --Dag330 (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

A question on notability

Hello everyone, I am TMcSquared, the Lead Developer for the Qub3d Engine project. I had submitted a draft for a wiki page on our project, thinking we had enough information to suffice a relatively good page; however, it lacked notability and was thus declined. How would I add citations from reliable sources when there really aren't that many available that pertain to our project? TMcSquared (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@TMcSquared: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I regret to disappoint you, but if your project is not sufficiently written about in independent reliable sources, it will not be possible to have an article about it here at this time. As an encyclopedia, we are only interested in what independent reliable sources state. Wikipedia is not a forum to merely disseminate information. That often means Wikipedia is a touch behind the curve on some subjects, but it is necessary to ensure independent verifiability and that notability guidelines are met. 331dot (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
@TMcSquared: I would gently add that you should also review WP:COI and WP:PAID, as both seem to pertain to your situation. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
@331dot: Thanks for the information! I did forget to mention it's an opensource project and noone gets paid, so WP:PAID doesn't apply. As for WP:COI I kind of understand where that would apply, but I'm not totally sure it completely applies as this isn't a personal page for me. TMcSquared (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
@331dot: Also, should we maintain a draft of the project page until it gets reliable sources?TMcSquared (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
TMcSquared, unless you are serving in the management position you've ascribed yourself to as a volunteer, PAID most likely does apply to you, and there is no question whatsoever COI does. John from Idegon (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
TMcSquared John from Idegon is absolutely correct regarding COI/PAID. It would be no different than the CEO of Ford Motor Company wanting to write an article about a new car. Regarding keeping the draft, drafts are typically only deleted after six months of inactivity(barring some other issue with them). If you expect independent sources to take notice of what you are doing in that amount of time, then you have no issue. If none do, however, the draft would be deleted if it was not edited in that time. Please note that sources are no longer independent if you commission them to write about your project, or the sources are just press releases or any other primary source. 331dot (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
TMcSquared, in case by you're not catching the drift here, Wikipedia is the last stop on the PR train, not the first. We do not have articles about given subjects, we have articles about what has been written about given subjects. And experience tells me that someone who is as closely connected to a project as yourself will never be able to completely separate what you already know from what has been written. Every single thing in an encyclopedia article must come from a published source. Everything. We are here at Teahouse to help new editors. Sometimes that help means telling a new editor they have a mistaken impression of what Wikipedia is. I'm afraid that is the case here. John from Idegon (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
@John from Idegon: Ah, thanks for clearing all of this up, I kind of had my understanding of how Wikipedia worked and what is was a little mixed up. About the PAID thing, yes I am a volunteer since it's an open-source project, but that's of no matter due to the COI problem.

Treehouse

What is the treehouse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrenson77 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Lawrenson77: You can use our site's search feature to look for articles like Treehouse.
This is the teahouse, where one can find help on how to use the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Abusive behavior, account blocked

I was writing about a band from my city, which information about the band has not been published at the Wikipedia yet. I want to know if I can post this new article about that band, writing with secure references. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoocornelio (talk • contribs) 16:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Leoocornelio: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure what the header you wrote refers to, but if you were blocked under another username, you need to return to that username and request to be unblocked. By creating another username, you are evading your block.
Regarding your draft itself, the band you want to write about will need to meet at least one of the criteria listed at WP:BAND, which are the notability guidelines for bands. The article will also need to be nonpromotional and have independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
@331dot: Hello, thank you for answering me. Despite the article has been eliminated for the reason A4, can I try again to publicate the page?
@Leoocornelio: Without knowing what page specifically you are talking about, I think you mean G4- an article deleted due to a deletion discussion. If the article was deleted due to a deletion discussion, it cannot be recreated unless the reasons for the deletion were addressed.
Before you do anything else, you need to return to your original account and request to be unblocked. Continuing to evade your block puts you at risk of being blocked under this username, making it harder to get unblocked under any name. 331dot (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Where do I report vandalism?

2 articles Samsung Galaxy Note II and Samsung Galaxy Note (original) were vandalized by this IP user: 115.54.40.85. And his edits are in this website. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/115.54.40.85 But how do I report vandalism? 2602:306:8BB9:4E20:DD7D:7DF2:D5EB:F587 (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Easiest is just to undo the bad edits. If the editor is making many bad edits you can file a report at WP:AIV RudolfRed (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Add a page

There is a page for Elm Place. How can I copy this page and rename it to THE DREVER? - which is the new name for the building. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CulverPR (talk • contribs) 18:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@CulverPR: You should discuss this on the article's talk page, after you address the concerns posted on your talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello! I have been craving to write on Wikipedia!

I have a huge hobby! It is connected to a game I play religiously just as others do. I am not bi-ased I genuinely love video games, it's sorta how I grew up. ChibiFighters is the name and many Steemit And Medium blogs are the game! I am amongst one of the writers but I must admit I am not the most special. I definitely want a wikipedia page to help newcomers without publishing anything that would dishearten others. I would be following all the rules as well as writing about all the details, First and foremost who developed the game and how they were brought upon to! Interviewing is the best and Wikipedia fits all the criteria of a great encyclopedia for a Ethereum Based Web Browser Game. Would you agree? If so I will get started on my publication request as soon as possible! Chibigame.io is where they are based! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.124.42.209 (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Credinity (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC) Credinity

@Credinity: Not sure what you're wanting to write, but Wikipedia is an an encyclopedia and not a place for blog writing or Original Research. You can read WP:YFA for what is needed to write a new article. RudolfRed (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Recovery of user page:Kaahon/sandbox

Hi Randykitty, The user page:Kaahon/sandbox, URL:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Kaahon/sandbox&action=edit&redlink=1&preload=Template%3AUser+sandbox%2Fpreload has been deleted citing the ground of "Unambiguous advertising or promotion in userspace". But we hereby would want to explain that there has been no intention of advertising or promotion of the website from our end. Kaahon is a web portal that has been working on research work for long and intended to have a Wikipedia page for sharing its information and knowledge to the greater audience throughout the world. We therefore, would wish to have the page retrieved. In addition to it, we request the Wikipedia guidelines to be explained to us in order to prevent such instances from occurring in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaahon (talk • contribs) 18:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Kaahon, but like many people you seem to misunderstand what Wikipedia is. "sharing its information and knowledge to the greater audience throught the world" is precisely what we mean by promotion. Wikipedia summarised information which has already been published by independent commentators on a subject, not what people connected with the subject want to say about it. --ColinFine (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

A question about three revert rule and stuff

So I am relatively new to Wikipedia and still haven't grasped the rules completely.


I've added a line on the Felix Brych article about a tax evasion investigation launched against him by the German police. But User:S.A. Julio reverted it on the grounds that it was WP:UNDUE.. When I saw that, I started a discussion on that article's talk page about adding that line and outlined my arguments there, pinged User:S.A. Julio to that talk page and reverted his reversion, while also copying my arguments from the talk page into the edit summary of my reversion as well as asking him in the summary to join the discussion on the talk page.


However, Julio did not join me on the talk page, and again reverted my edit, this time citing WP:WELLKNOWN. Since he was nowhere to be found on the talk page, I again reverted his reversion, and, again, in the edit summary, cited arguments against [WP:WELLKNOWN] and. again, asked him to go to the talk page . At this point I also went to his talk page, outlined my arguments, again, and, again, asked him to join the discussion that I've started on that referees' talk page.

He didn't join the discussion and reverted again, this time citing WP:BRD. I then reverted him, and in the edit summary outlined my arguments why BRD doesn't fit this situation and asked him to go the talk page. But then I realised that that reversion would be my third, and since there's a three-revert rule I reverted that reversion of mine.


My question is: who is in the wrong? Did he break the three-revert rule with his reversions? In the last reversion of his he, in the edit summary, said, and I quote: WP:BRD, a possible BLP violation which is contested should be discussed first)(undo | thank) which is ironic since I was asking him from the start to join the discussion that Ive started on the talk page after his first reversion of my original edit/ It's been an hour since I started that discussion on the talk page, and he still hasn't joined. I can't revert his reversion since that would mean breaking the 3-reverts rule. What am I supposed to do in this specific case, according to Wikipedia's rules?

P.S. There has been more reversions on both my and his part than three, but those were against IP users, because the page has been brigaded by vandals and I don't count those reversions since we were reverting obvious vandalisms.

P.P.S. sorry for the broken English.
Openlydialectic (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Openlydialectic. You did the right thing by opening a discussion on the talk page, but undermined that by immediately reverting again, and then continuing to revert. Edit warring like that is never productive, regardless of whether or not it breaches the three-revert rule. When somebody reverts your change, the best practice, outlined in WP:BRD, is to start a discussion and leave the page as it was until a consensus is reached. You should also give other editors at least a few hours to a day to respond, but I see that S.A. Julio has already done so. The thing to do at this point is to discuss the matter on the talk page and try to reach a consensus. – Joe (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I just kinda assumed things happen faster on Wikipedia, but if waiting a few hours to a day is the way to go - so be it. Thanks again for helping me with this one. Issue resolved. Openlydialectic (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Where to discuss changes to a category?

In the category for ficitonal spaceplanes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fictional_spaceplanes) contains a subcategory that I don't believe should be nested in it. I think it would be much better under Spacecraft by type as not all starfighters are spaceplanes. I remember reading somewhere (can't find it now) that talk pages on categories aren't the best place to discuss changes as not many people visit that space. I don't want to kick the hornet's nest in any way, so where would be the best place to discuss this before I make any changes? Basmith0 (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

How to create a Wikidata link when one isn't created automatically?

By devious routes, 2018 Tour of California calls Wikidata:Q51854018 which calls Michael Rice which is a DAB page. Michael Rice is blacklinked in the target page, but Wikidata is creating a spurious link to the DAB page which User:DPL bot is correctly reporting as a WP:INTDABLINK error and which is making no useful link. I created Michael Rice (cyclist) as the stubbiest of stub articles in an attempt to solve the problem, but it has no Q-number and therefore the error in Q51854018 and its knock-on error cannot be corrected. Ideas, anyone? 22:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Narky Blert. I was going to remove the link from d:Q22710618 (the Wikidata entry for Michael Rice the cyclist) to Michael Rice, because that is not a correct link. But that lemma is not connected to a page on enwiki, and as far as I can tell, never has been. If you get Michael Rice (cyclist) to the point where it is not liable to get deleted, you could link the Wikidata lemma to it. --ColinFine (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@ColinFine: (1) The Tour of California is a UCI World Tour event. Michael Rice (cyclist) therefore passes WP:NCYCLING and is not liable to be deleted. (2) I have added Michael Rice (cyclist) to d:Q22710618. That seems to have both attached the Wikidata link to Michael Rice (cyclist) and (after a WP:NULLEDIT) to have bluelinked him in 2018 Tour of California and to have solved the WP:INTDABLINK problem.
So, that is yet another problem caused by a call to Wikidata solved. I know of three highly-experienced editors including myself, with well over a million edits between us, who have wasted literally hours of our time trying to solve this sort of unnecessary puzzle (how many editors know about WP:NULLEDIT? or how to make Interwiki links?)
I personally rate Wikidata somewhere below the notoriously non-WP:RS site IMDb for the quality of the information which it contains. Narky Blert (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

How do I get a page for my friend?

Hello,

I am super new to this. I have a producer friend of mine who recently passed away, he is an Emmy award winner and co-writer and producer for many hit shows in the 90tys and in 2017. At his funeral, someone made a good point. All of his accomplishments are on Wikipedia, but he is not on Wikipedia. Therefore, I would like to know how do I get him a page on Wikipedia?

Thank you for your help Shimira — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nearmira305 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nearmira305. If your friend won a national Emmy award in his own name, then he is probably notable and eligible for a Wikipedia biography. If the Emmy was local or given to something he worked on without mentioning him by name, then he may not be notable. It all depends on the quality and depth of coverage in the published independent, reliable sources that describe him and his life and career. Please read Your first article, and come back to the Teahouse if you have other questions. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Suggested page

Can an admin make a page called William Byron (Stock Car Driver)? Cowboysfan3214 (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Cowboysfan3214, and welcome to the Teahouse. Any autoconfirmed user can make a new article, but none should unless there is good reason to think that the subject is notable. Can you supply sources that will pass WP:NBIO or in some othe way demonsatrate notability? Or better yet, why not just create Draft:William Byron (Stock Car Driver) yourself? Any editor can create a new draft. Then see if you can add enough sources to establish notability. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I just joined so I don’t know how to make pages. Cowboysfan3214 (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, Cowboysfan3214. Click on the red link I added to this thread, and start typing; it is that easy. However, I advise that you first read Your first article, Wikipedia's golden rule, and Referencing for beginners. Reliable sources are the life blood of Wikipedia articles, and they are what is needed to demonstrate that a topic is notable. Without notability, no article will be created, or if created anyway, it will not last long. Citations (also known as references) are how reliable sources are ti4ed to statements in an article, so you need to learn how to do them. I hope that this helps. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Cowboysfan3214 (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like William Byron (racing driver) has existed for the last three years anyway. Rojomoke (talk) 05:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

How do I delete an account?

Hello. I have an account called Hi im Gosu which I cannot remember the password to. I did not link my email address which was a mistake, I have realised. So I want to delete the account as having two accounts on Wikipedia is not allowed (also because I think the name Hi im gosu in itself is violating the Terms of Use, as there's a popular League of Legends Twitch.tv streamer called Gosu, but I am not this person), but I don't know how to. Can anyone help me with this? Thanks. - Biscuit-in-Chief (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Biscuit-in-Chief. It's not possible to delete user accounts and I don't think you need to. There's nothing wrong with having more than one account as long as you don't use them disruptively or deceptively. I have two. If you stop using your old account (easy if you don't remember the password!) and make a note on your new talk page that you used to edit under that name, you're fine.
I also wouldn't worry about WP:IMPERSONATE because gosu is a generic nickname and the person you mentioned isn't very well known. – Joe (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)



Thanks for the answer. I'll write a small note on my User Page about me having two accounts. This "not very well known" gosu has 1.2 million subscribers on YouTube and 1.4 million followers on Twitch. Isn't that quite well known?
Anyway, it doesn't matter. Thanks for the answer. - Biscuit-in-Chief (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

No, it does not matter, Biscuit-in-Chief. You have abandoned that old account, so forget about it. If your two accounts were to express opinions on the same thing going forward, that would be a big problem. But if you have forgotten the password, that is not possible. Forget about it and move on. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


Okay. I was mainly just curious about all this notability and stuff. - Biscuit-in-Chief (talk) 11:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Linda Redfearn. How do i create my first page about actress, Linda redfearn and make it stick ?

I was told by member Xx236 that I could not create my first page because it was not up to your standards. Is it because she is not popular enough to be acknowledged on Wikipedia ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stvn1 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Stvn1, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's because not enough has been written about her in reliable sources. Naturally, "popular" subject tend to be written about in the press, academia, etc. more than "unpopular" ones, so you could say she's not popular enough. But strictly speaking, it's about how much has been written about her, not how many fans she has etc. You can read more here: Wikipedia:Notability. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
That might still be the case, but actually Linda Redfearn was deleted because it had no text at all, just an empty page. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Your first article David notMD (talk) 14:02, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Want to expand the article Jarnail Singh (footballer)

Hi,

I am new editor in Wikipedia. While going through the article on Jarnail Singh (footballer), I felt that a new subsection should be added to highlight the fact that apart from being considered as one of the best defenders of Indian Football, his goals in the 1962 Asian Games Football semi-final and final matches helped India secure the gold medal. If a viewer or a reader wants to get an information on Jarnail Singh, the footballer, he/she would inevitably reach this page and would know that he played in the defence but wouldn't know that he also scored goals in the crucial matches which I have mentioned above. I would like to add that subsection mentioning the goals he scored in the Asian Games and their significance. Please suggest how to goa about it and also a suitable heading for the proposed section

Regards, Dipanjan Datta — Preceding unsigned comment added by DipanjanDatta1974 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, DipanjanDatta1974 and welcome to the Teahouse.
  • The first thing you need to do is identify reliable sources, such as accounts in major newspapers, that describe the matches and Singh's actions in them.
  • Next you need to describe those actions. You must be careful to be neutral and not go beyond the sources. If , for example the sources do not say that Sign's actions helped his team win the gold medal, then yiou cannot say that either. You must be particularly careful that the text you write is factual, and doe\s not seem intended to promote Singh.
  • Add your text to Jarnail Singh (footballer). A new section entitled "1962 Asian Games" might be a good place to include such text.
  • Cite your sources in the text. I urge you to read Referencing for Beginners first. The citations should allow any reader to verify that the added text is factual.
  • Optionally, add other info to the article. For example, the ye3ar of Singh's birth, the name(s) of the team or teams for which he played, and the years during which he was active. However, be sure to cite sources for any content that you add.
I hope that is helpful. Oh, in future please sign comments here and on talk and discussion pages with four tildes. (~~~~). The site's software will convert this to a link to your user page (or your custom signature if you set one up) and a timestamp. This is very helpful to other readers of the page, and to some scripts. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit account

how can I edit my account — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iyere Ezekiel (talk • contribs) 13:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Iyere Ezekiel, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am not clear what you mean by edit my account. You can change many things about how Wikipedia appears and behaves for you at Special:Preferences. Your user page User:Iyere Ezekiel, reads as if it is the start of a Wikipedia article. Please do not do that. It should describe you as a Wikipedia editor. It can say a little bit about who you are, but it should not read like a resume or an advertisement or an article. It may describe your interests or work done or planned here. See our guideline on user pages for more detail.
Oh, in future please sign comments here and on talk and discussion pages with four tildes. (~~~~). The site's software will convert this to a link to your user page (or your custom signature if you set one up) and a timestamp. This is very helpful to other readers of the page, and to some scripts. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata

Hello everybody! If I am right, I guess the Alpine pika does have its record on Wikidata. This is because its class is not mentioned GA but has a question mark similar to the DYK symbol instead. If you could suggest how to amend that I would be much grateful. Thank you! :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, {{|Adityavagarwal}}. The Wikidata item for Alpine pika is here: d:Q4524. It has the English Wikipedia article marked as a Good Article; scroll down and look for the "badge" symbol next to the link to English Wikipedia. Why Wikidata uses these badges rather than the Good Article icon is beyond me as well. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Adityavagarwal. I'm not sure what you refer to. Is it about the icon at "en" at wikidata:Q4524#sitelinks-wikipedia? I see a silver badge https://www.wikidata.org/w/extensions/Wikidata.org/resources/images/wb-badges-silver.png?01870 with hover text "good article". It appears to be the normal Wikidata icon for good article. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Hi guys,

I had an article rejected as the sources were said to be unreliable? However the majority of the sources were Irish newspapers websites, Official University links to their website, and personal websites of people mentioned in the article? I'm not sure how i can make my sources more reliable?

Is it possible for someone to review my submission through here and offer advice? I'd like to begin adding a lot more articles, but this is a bit of a step back.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corkmusichistory (talk • contribs) 13:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's ask the reviewer. Can you be more specific, Chrissymad? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Corkmusichistory. I don't know what Chrissymad will have to say, but I have a few comments:
In short, some of these sources do not look reliable, and none of them do much to establish Duffy's notability. Sources that more directly and extensively discuss Duffy or his work would be needed.
Oh Please refer to Duffy by last name in the body of the article, not by fist name, and please sign posts her and on talk pages (not in articles) with four tildes (~~~~). I hoipe these comments are helpful. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC) @Corkmusichistory and Finnusertop: DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Creating an article

how to create an article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iyere Ezekiel (talk • contribs) 16:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Iyere Ezekiel: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The process of creating an article is discussed at Your First Article. I would caution you that successfully creating a new article is probably the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. You may find the tutorial at WP:ADVENTURE helpful to learn about how Wikipedia works. Most successful new users also started small by editing existing articles, to get a feel for the process. 331dot (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Can someone review/edit "Robert Malenka" article?

I just added quite a bit of information on Robert Malenka's page for one of my college classes. If anybody could edit it that would be much appreciated!! Here is the link to my article: [[1]]

And to my sandbox User:Madelinehartman/sandbox

Madelinehartman (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

  • The article improvements look good to me, Madelinehartman. Another editor added some links and touchups, but that's pretty clean prose and well-sourced. Ravenswing 20:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
But we already have an article with this name here Robert Malenka. Theroadislong (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
That's the article that Madelinehartman has edited, Theroadislong. This isn't a question about a draft for review, but about additions to an existing article. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry... I'm not the sharpest tool in the box. Theroadislong (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks guys! Sorry I should have made that more clear User:Theroadislong

Copyrighted images question

Hello everyone,

Recently I approved James Cyriax with page curation, but the article wasn't quite where I wanted it to be, and so I decided to have a go at actually editing article content (I usually stick to the GOCE and NPP). I found several images of the man in question, such as this one, this one, and this one, but I am not sure if any of them are considered fair use or not. All of the images appear to be from a source other than the hosts of the content, but do not provide a source. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Non-free content page mentions not to use non-free content of living people, but does not mention the deceased. Thanks for any help, Xevus11 (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Xevus11 see WP:NFCI§10 of that page. This is a standard use of non-free images. The main requirement is that you have made a reasonable effort to find free photos first, but didn't find any. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
FinnusertopAh, missed that. Thank you! Xevus11 (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Minor edits reversed by another user?

I made a couple of very minor edits (removed an errant bracket (]} and fixed a broken link, but another user reversed the changes as not constructive. The page is David Fair. Also, in reversing the changes, the other user reinstated an old photo that had been replaced by a more recent one. Is this acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudard (talk • contribs) 22:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rudard, welcome to the Teahouse. It looks like the other user made an honest mistake. He probably only viewed your latest edit [2] at the time. Your change from "Philly Homes for Youth Coalition" to "Philly Homes 4 Youth Coalition" was unsourced and sounds like a type of vandalism we often get but the odd name with "4" is correct according to a Google search. Since the editor incorrectly assumed you were not constructive, he used a tool which reverts [3] all your consecutive edits to the article. Users who review recent changes have a lot to do and mistakes can happen. You are free to reinstate the edits but I recommend including a source for "Philly Homes 4 Youth Coalition". PrimeHunter (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
PrimeHunter is correct, I only saw the "for" to "4" edit when I reverted. Edits such as these are generally done as vandalism, which is why I assumed that this one was. Sorry about that. Tillerh11 (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Got it. I really appreciate your help! Rudard —Preceding undated comment added 00:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Page notability - help needed!

Since March 2017 a page I have been working on Draft:European_Beat_Studies_Network has been rejected multiple times. I do not agree with the most recent notability rejections, which seem borderline and based on semantic distinctions. My argument is that the EBSN effectively is its conferences and publications, and that the sources are independent of the subject, even if they contain testimony from members of the EBSN. Since the conferences have been discussed in national newspapers and elsewhere the EBSN does constitute a notable subject for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you apply the rule that all members of the EBSN constitute the subject, then effectively anything written in the media about any of the members can constitute notability material for the network - which is absurd! I hope Teahouse members can see my problem/frustration. The last review rejected the page without mentioning notability (it questioned sources, which turned out to be fine) - so does that mean the issue is now resolved? Can anyone help or suggest ways to improve the article? I expect to be told to give up on this article, which seems a shame... many thanks in advance. Cowmanonemanband (talk) 06:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Cowmanonemanband and welcome to the Teahouse.
One of the hardest concepts that new Wikipedia editors have to come to grips with is the particular way WP thinks of notability. They have to get past their preconceived ideas that fame, importance, or other forms of worthiness are good indications of notability.
In order for EBSN to be notable, it has to have some visible impact on the greater world of scholarship outside its particular bailiwick. If we were to see this, it would appear in publications that are wholly independent of EBSN members. If a national newspaper covers a conference but does not go into depth about the organization sponsoring the conference, we don't have a good notability reference for the organization. And press reports based primarily on interviews with the organizers and speakers at the conference fail to be notability references because they are insufficiently independent.
I see that there is an MfD discussion on this draft, but it's unclear how that will turn out. Notability will be discussed, but, ordinarily, lack of demonstrated notability is not a valid reason for deletion of a draft. Minor errors in the referencing syntax and the presence of a few peacock words in the draft should be easy to fix.
When a reviewer declines a draft with more than one problem, they still have to choose a main reason for the decline. I'm afraid that it's not possible to conclude that other potential areas for a decline are resolved unless the reviewer explicitly says so. Reviewers are supposed to consider submissions according to a hierarchy of considerations, but I don't find that this happens consistently.
The fact that this article has been declined so many times (at least 8 times that I can count) is troubling. It means that there hasn't been good communication between you, the contributor, and the reviewers about what the actual deficiencies of the draft are.
So what should you do at this point? At a minimum, you should post your view in the MfD discussion. You should find, at the AfC Help Desk that there are editors willing to go over the draft in a detailed fashion, consider each section and each reference. You should be able to explain there exactly how your draft meets the standards of NORG and that discussion can be a permanent record you can point to when it comes time to submit the draft again. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 08:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
As jmcgnh notes, there is a deletion discussion at Miscellany for Deletion, because the draft has been submitted 8 times and declined. At that deletion discussion, I observed that the submitter appears to be trying to bring the draft up to standard, but may be "stuck" and needs outside advice. (Often MFD has an obviously non-notable topic whose submitter is just tendentious, but this is a case where the topic organization may be notable, and where the submitter is clearly trying to bring the draft up to guidelines.) I advised the submitter to come here for that advice. Is someone here willing to try to help Cowmanonemanband? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
There are days when I am willing to go over a draft and give a detailed review; I'm just not up for that at the moment. This draft is now on my watchlist and in my thoughts, so I will likely get around to it if nobody else gets there first. I'd like to see the MfD discussion closed as well. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • If you don’t agree with the rejections (actually “declines”), then move it to mainspace yourself. AfC and draftspace is not required. I recommend that no one use it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

How to add a pic to a Commons category?

I recently uploaded File:Glerolle Jean-Benjamin-de-La-Borde1784.jpg. It belongs in commons:Category:Château de Glérolles. My edit attempting to put it there does not seem to have taken. Now what? Narky Blert (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Narky Blert. You uploaded it to the English Wikipedia so it cannot be added to a Commons category. The English Wikipedia has far fewer categories for images, e.g. Category:Images of buildings and structures and Category:Images of Switzerland. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
As a faithful 1:1 reproduction, you could likely upload the image to Commons with Commons:Template:PD-scan (see link for details), although some more information on the image's origin would be helpful (i.e. details about its first publication). Are you sure, that Jean-Benjamin de La Borde (cross-linked in Glérolles Castle) is the engraver? The linked Wiki-article describes an aristocratic musician, but has no mention of any other artistic activities (just checking). GermanJoe (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
@GermanJoe: It's the same man all right - the name is an unusual one, and fr:Jean-Benjamin de La Borde quotes a letter he wrote from Vevey (about 3km away) in 1783, the year before the engraving was published, which mentions a visit to "la tour de Glérolles". I could find no more details about its original publication. Narky Blert (talk) 04:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I do not how to add a reliable source properly.

Hello and thanks for inviting me on the Tea House I have a question that how to add a reliable source properly. When I edit any page on the topic Indian Cinema I edit the gross/budget of the film when there is not given or given but wrong so when i want to add a reliable source it shows that it is wrong, I except my mistake that I am not giving the reliable source so please please help me so I can edit freely. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Light Of Won (talk • contribs) 10:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Light Of Won, and welcome to the Teahouse. You may use any independent published reliable source as a reference. This will include most newspapers. A source does NOT need to be online -- offline printed sources may be used. A source does not need to be in English either, although if equal-quality English-language sources are available, they are preferred. See WP:CITE. For offline sources, you should provide: the name of the publication (newspaper, magazine, or whatever), the date of publication, the title of the article, the page number, the name of the author (reporter) IF that is stated in the publication, and the location of [publication (unless that is included in the name of the publication). A citation template such as {{cite news}} or {{cite web}} will offer a convenient way to organize this information, but this is not required. If the source IS online, please provide all the same information, plus a link to the online version. The template does this with the |url= parameter. For an online source, please also give the date it was checked or retrieved. The template does this with the |access-date= parameter. Note that for an online source, please give the name of the publication, and not the online domain or web address in the |work= or |website= parameter if using templates. If an online publication does not have page numbers, omit them, do not make something up. You can read Referencing for Beginners for more details. If you have further questions, feel free to ask here again. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Recently edited Alex Ozols then it went up for deletion

Hello, new user here!

So I recently got into Wikipedia its a little confusing I am still trying to figure it out. I recently made an account and I am trying to get my edits up so I had my TV on in the background and I saw a lawyer on there that I see weekly talking about cases in San Diego. I thought ok I can maybe add edits to his page. So I go to it, add some citations where they were lacking I think like 2 or three and the next day the article is being considered for deletion. I then was like ok well this is cool because its a learning experience for me and I can learn more about wikipedia. So I read a ton and I posted my "keep" opinion on the talk page for it.

When this type of thing happens, what happens next? how long is it considered for deletion? who makes the final decision?

The last question is, did this happen because of any edits I made. I have never met this attorney but I have seen him at least 50 times on local news in one week handling a case and now usually weekly. He is probably the most well-known lawyer in all of San Diego and handled our biggest criminal case ever in San Diego history. I would feel terrible if me trying to add to the page messed things up for his page.

Thanks for creating this awesome place for new users to ask questions !Californiadreamin87 (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Link: Alex Ozols (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello, Californiadreamin87, welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Ozols, usually for a week or more. Eventually an admin, or an experienced editor who is not an admin, will "Close" the discussion, and mark it as "Keep", "Delete", or "No consensus" (or there are some other less common possible outcomes). If the consensus is to delete, then and only then will the article be deleted. Note that it is not just a matter of counting up the number in favor of one outcome or another, but the strength of the arguments, and the degree to which each is soundly based in Wikipedia policy. Often, and probably in this case, the key policy is notability and the various guidelines indicating what will or may make a topic "notable". You should be aware that Wikipedia uses the term "notability" in a special sense, rather different from the way it is used elsewhere. Do read the policy page and the other pages linked from it to understand this better.
I don't know why the editor chose to nominate this page for deletion at this time, but I doubt that it was because of your edits. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Awesome advice and a great detailed explanation, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Californiadreamin87 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_789&oldid=847841610"